Other

Of Course Americans Still Hate Banks

Featured Rates

Earlier this week, MarketWatch listed the ten most-hated companies in America, and to my big surprise, a financial institution made the list. And by surprise, I mean no surprise at all.

Citigroup is the sole financial institution on the list, joining the likes of American Airlines, JC Penny, T-Mobile and Hewlett-Packard. What fine company you keep, Citi.

The list was compiled by 24/7 Wall St., who analyzed companies by looking at their stock performance, customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction. This is what 24/7 Wall St. had to say about why Citi is one of the most-hated companies in America today:

Citigroup sacked CEO Vikram Pandit, left, late last year, after he had shepherded the bank through the financial crisis and then fired thousands of workers as well. Pandit’s successor, Michael Corbat, said he would fire 11,000 more. The bank’s board may have been frustrated with the pace of cost reductions under Pandit, but that was not the only issue that the board apparently believed had hurt long-term shareholder value. Pandit’s mishandling of the sale of its Smith Barney unit caused Citi to write down $2.9 billion, and the action triggered a cut in its credit ratings by Moody’s. Such actions did not endear Citi to investors. The recovery of Citi’s shares since the global financial meltdown has been far worse than its major competitors.

The minutia of investment deals and investor quarrels at big financial institutions like Citi is of no concern to regular Joe Schmoes like you and I. All we know is that a lot of money is being thrown around, and we’re not really benefiting that much from it, if at all. (Have you seen those saving rates?)

But anyone who even vaguely keeps up with the news knows that banks and other financial institutions are still regularly digging their own graves.

Before the holidays, HSBC was fined a record-breaking $1.9 billion to settle charges of laundering funds to countries like Iran and Sudan. A Congressional committee stated that over the course of nine years, the bank “exposed the U.S. financial system to money laundering and terrorist-financing risks.” The government, in fact, had sufficient evidence that the bank was exposing terrorist and drug cartels to the country’s financial system, but decided that prosecuting the bank on criminal charges would effectively kill the bank, which could possibly cripple the global economy once again.

It remains frustrating that cases involving major criminal misconduct by financial institutions most often result in a large fine and a commitment to follow the law, while individuals are not held to account – leaving the impression that, for the banking sector, these settlements have become little more than expensive parking tickets.

If HSBC isn’t the perfect example of “too big to fail,” I don’t know what is.

Then, right after the holidays, insurance giant AIG made the news because its board members were deciding whether or not to sue the Federal government for unlawfully seizing AIG since the bailout meant that the government ended up taking a 92 percent stake in the company and depriving shareholders of their money.

AIG has a lawsuit itch these days, because they made the news again this week: now they want to sue the banks that sold them faulty products, like claiming that Bank of America packaged and sold bad mortgages to them, leading to billions of dollars in losses for AIG.

AIG eventually dropped the lawsuit against the Federal government due to considerable backlash — did they really expect anything else? — but seem dogged in their attempt to point fingers elsewhere.

Early last week, the government settled multiple lawsuits with banks for previous bad behavior. In one settlement, Bank of America agreed to pay Fannie Mae more than $11 billion to settle bad mortgages. Fannie Mae claims that Bank of America put together and sold bad mortgages, which it then sold to the government. When borrowers defaulted on those loans, it cost Fannie Mae billions in losses.

In another settlement, ten major U.S. banks — including BofA, Citi and Chase — have to cough up $8.5 billion for wrongfully foreclosing on homeowners because the banks skipped steps in the foreclosure process and mishandled paperwork.

Yes, banks are paying up for misdeeds committed earlier, but that doesn’t really erase the distrust that American consumers have for banks and other financial institutions at this point. These settlements are revealing just how committed banks are to blatantly disregarding this country’s rules and regulations, and more importantly, how little they care for the individual consumer. Banks and financial institutions have capitalized too heavily on Americans’ dream of house ownership, and to be faced with punitive damage is the very least they can do.

Two days ago, everyone paid attention to news that Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, is taking a 50 percent paycut. A 50 percent cut is a huge one, to be sure, but Dimon is still getting paid more than $11 million a year. Times reader Johndrake07 puts it most eloquently:

The hardships facing Jamie Dimon almost bring me to tears. It is a sad sign of the times when we have to cut banker’s salaries in half! — to a measly 11 million. Think of the difficulty facing his family — their clothes allowances drop to $5000 per month, the food rationing that will have to take place. No more fresh sushi at Masa. Gone will be the hob-nobbing with Alain Ducass at Essex House. They’ll have to abandon their favorite table at Per Se — tears jump to the eyes at the thought!…It’s a shame. A dang shame.

Banks and other financial institutions keep inadvertently airing their dirty laundry, settlement after settlement, and in lieu of actual punishments, we find that the government is a big fan of tiny slaps on the wrist, as they’re not ever willing to risk bank death. What banks learn from all of this is probably nothing at all.

Ask a Question

JohnDrake07

Amy – another one from JohnDrake07:
Vis-a-vis the NYTimes 29 Jan editorial on Drones:
Drones have been with us since the 40’s. The very first drone was made
by Mattel, innocently called “The Beanie-Copter.” It is obvious that
this insidious so-called “toy” was nothing more than an attempt to
soften up the market aimed at children of those times – our current
baby-boomers – as a ploy to psychologically induce the mental paralysis
we are seeing now when it comes to the drones flying our skies, domestic
and foreign. In a plot that could come right out of James Bond, the
Beanie-Copter and it’s twirling ‘copter’ blades on top was a manchurian
candidate-toy by the military industrial complex – notably
Northrup-Grumman – and was the forerunner to the drunken-drones that
landed on the White House lawn. This crafty and devious toy was involved
in several high-profile cases that rocked the domestic establishment.
Notably the “Dinner Disaster Drone Debacle” and the “Birthday Bash
Blowup Boondoggle.” Fortunately at the time, the only victim was the pot
roast and jello salad. This, however, was sufficient for the Goldwater
administration to ban Beanie-Babies from all President Inaugural
Celebrations and was probably the main cause for Mattel’s financial
fall-from-grace. This decline in Mattel’s fortunes continued until the
Nixon administration when they introduced Beanie-copters for use in
Vietnam and the illegal bombing runs on Laos and Cambodia.
Students of history will look back and recognize the tell-tale similarities of how we have been victimized by marketeers.

JohnDrake07

Another one from Johndrake07: vis-a-vis Who will Pay for Abu Ghraib? – published today.
The US could clean up Abu Ghraib, then “rebrand it” as a tourist attraction – not unlike Alcatraz – and conduct mandatory tours for Senators, Congressmen, News Media War Apologists, ex-Secretary of State Neo-Con Warmongers running for President in 2016, members of the Pentagon, CIA, and anyone else who has denied, lied, hidden, promoted and profited from the War on Iraq – and give them a first-hand experience of waterboarding until they admit to their crimes, publicly. This could be televised and would replace the War Crimes Tribunal, which has been prevented from going after the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush2, Yee, and a host of others. Pay-Per-View would reap profits that could be channeled back to families whose sons and daughters died in those illegal wars, as well as troops who have returned critically damaged and suicidal from their illnesses caused by exposure to depleted uranium, burning toxic waste dumps and PTSD stress-related diseases. Renditions could follow for anyone above who tries to circumvent the tour. There is the potential for blockbuster reality shows that let contestants experience first-hand what so many innocent people have. Instead of limiting profits to corporations and warmongers, they could be paid to the general public. The rebranded torture center could take their business model public, issue stock (traded on the DOW and NASDAQ) – and guarantee that monies extracted from the public could now be returned to them. Tax free of course.

Advertiser Disclosure: Many of the savings offers appearing on this site are from advertisers from which this website receives compensation for being listed here. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). These offers do not represent all deposit accounts available.

Editorial Disclosure: This content is not provided or commissioned by the bank advertiser. Opinions expressed here are author’s alone, not those of the bank advertiser, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the bank advertiser. This site may be compensated through the bank advertiser Affiliate Program.

User Generated Content Disclosure: These responses are not provided or commissioned by the bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the bank advertiser. It is not the bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.